Like JC said, he does require waivers. But it there seems to be a degree of confidence that he wouldn't be claimed if he was sent down.

"So why does Strait even accept a two-way deal if he requires waivers to go down?"

- I believe it would have to do with re-entry waiver eligibility. If he makes $105,000 or less in the minors, he won't require re-entry waivers...the d-men that don't require re-entry waivers are more likely to be called up...a calculated career move by Strait, might take a little less money if he goes down at first, but he leaves himself an opportunity to get recalled...

shmenguin wrote:what's the appropriate reaction if we lose him on waivers? i'm not really sure.

"Good luck"

i guess maybe he would be considered the nick johnson of our defenseman pool?

i liked strait last year. he had one abomination of a game (maybe it was against st louis?), but overall, i thought he looked promising. hard to tell though, since he was so insulated, but in the ice time he was given, against the competition he was given, he looked like he belonged in a #6 role.

shmenguin wrote:what's the appropriate reaction if we lose him on waivers? i'm not really sure.

If it's anything like the reaction when we lost rookie all-star Nick Johnson, Shero better build a moat.

The problem with losing Johsnon was that he looked good the year before and there was no reason to lose him at all for nothing. They had a roster of 22 players opening night and that included MacIntyre. Waiving Johsnon at the time was stupid. It wasn't even a numbers game. Shero chose to waive him for the sake of waiving him. And how could he have not seen that Fletcher and Yeo wanted him? Work out a trade then. Then moving Letestu for a draft pick left even less depth up front.

Granted, Johnson fizzled out and we could ahve picked him up again for nothing but that's not really the point. It was a mismanagement of assets.

If we lose Starit on waivers it should be because he was outside the top 8 or 9 in defensemen on the team and Dumoulin, Bortuzzo and/or Morrow grossly outplayed him..

If we lose him because Shero demotes him even with having a roster spot open then I will be a bit upset.

- Johnson had no intrinsic value. Which is why he wasn't even given a qualifying offer by the team that claimed him. Then had to take a two-way contract in unrestricted free agency. It's a justification of Shero's move. Shero didn't do anything wrong. You can't be sure you'd even get a 7th round pick for someone like Johnson and even if you could, you probably wouldn't...

- Keeping him as the 23rd player on a 20 man roster is probably a bigger waste of an asset than losing him on waivers. Just keeping a player as a scratch trying to either a) plug a square peg into a round hole or b) trying to grind out a 7th round pick or failing prospect out of a resident farm hand is not something a quality, upstanding GM would do. By waiving him, Shero is saying he's not ready for the NHL on a contending team, he would be worthwhile on the AHL team...which is agreeable. Meanwhile, by waiving him he gets the option to claim him off waivers and send him down (freely) if the claiming team (Minnesota) were to put him on waivers themselves...

- Shero has a good reputation with players. He doesn't try to squeeze players. He's very accomodating. Libor Pivko, didn't try to make a fuss and stick him on the fourth line or in the AHL...gave him shot, said, "if you don't make the big lines, we'll let you go home", John LeClair: worked out a mutual release so he could continue his career if another team saw him fit; Mark Recchi: Accomodated him very well and allowed him to move on to Atlanta; it appears that he may have done the same with Michalek, sending him back to where he wanted to go at a reduced cost (a 3rd). You don't just hold on to a kid like Johnson just to hold on to him, you're responsible for that player's development too, at a crucial time like this, you can literally hold his career in your hands. You can scratch him 62 times and let him play 20 games on the fourth line and then let him go at the end of the year with no hope of getting a contract really, or you can let him have a chance to be a top-line player in the AHL OR if another deems him good enough, let him play there. Which he did, and Johnson proved to be nothing...but thankful.

shmenguin wrote:what's the appropriate reaction if we lose him on waivers? i'm not really sure.

If it's anything like the reaction when we lost rookie all-star Nick Johnson, Shero better build a moat.

The problem with losing Johsnon was that he looked good the year before and there was no reason to lose him at all for nothing. They had a roster of 22 players opening night and that included MacIntyre. Waiving Johsnon at the time was stupid. It wasn't even a numbers game. Shero chose to waive him for the sake of waiving him. And how could he have not seen that Fletcher and Yeo wanted him? Work out a trade then. Then moving Letestu for a draft pick left even less depth up front.

Granted, Johnson fizzled out and we could ahve picked him up again for nothing but that's not really the point. It was a mismanagement of assets.

If we lose Starit on waivers it should be because he was outside the top 8 or 9 in defensemen on the team and Dumoulin, Bortuzzo and/or Morrow grossly outplayed him..

If we lose him because Shero demotes him even with having a roster spot open then I will be a bit upset.

None of these guys really matter anyway according to most on this board. Fringe NHLers and dime a dozen scrubs.